Announcements

Name: Dr. Claudio Testani
Affiliation: CALEF-ENEA CR Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, Santa Maria di Galeria, 00123 Rome, Italy
Research interests: titanium and aluminum alloys; ODS steels; powder metallurgy; additive manufacturing; characterization of metals (relaxation, fatigue, and creep); rolling; extrusion superplastic forging and HIP processes

The following is a short interview with Dr. Claudio Testani:

1. Could you give a brief introduction to yourself to the readers? Could you introduce your current research direction and provide an update on your progress?
My name is Claudio Testani, a structural aerospace engineer with a Ph.D. in material engineering from the University of Rome TorVergata, Italy. I hold a habilitation in metallurgy and I am a member of the Ph.D. industrial engineering scientific board of TorVergata University, where I hold the course “Light alloys metallurgy and related technologies with industrial applications”.
For over 26 years, I have worked at the CSM SpA, an Italian Research Centre for metallurgy and related processes. Actually, I am the technical director of CALEF, a public-private research consortium. Furthermore, I am an expert team member of the Italian Agency for the Promotion of European Research (APRE) for Cluster 4 in the Horizon Europe Program.
I have always been involved in industrial research applications, and my latest research field comprises the development of ODS structural steels, titanium and aluminum technologies, and light alloy thermal treatment optimization. The very last efforts have been focused on the process parameters for rolling down to ultrathin thickness high-strength Ti-alloys. Many details are, obviously, depending on the final application, and some new papers are in progress.
I am an active reviewer and author of eight international patents. I am proud to have invented the hot radial pressing process for divertors in collaboration with ENEA, published more than 100 papers in international journals, have an h-index of 16, and have given numerous oral presentations and invited talks at international conferences.

2. As a reviewer, how do you balance the encouragement of research innovation with the strict requirements for method reliability? Can you give an example?
I believe that “Research Innovation” needs “Method Reliability”. If the method is not reliable, every innovation is not a real innovation. I can report my experience in the industrial application sector: there is no innovation without reliability. I have to add other parameters for the transfer from a lab to a medium-scale application. Let me say that the industrial application of innovative metals is coupled at least with reliability and affordability. I well remember a wonderful idea, for manufacturing car exhaust systems, blocked in the 90s, not for costs, but because of not economical convenience, probably today there are similar examples with electrical car components.

3. In addition to “error correction”, what unique value do you think excellent peer review can provide to the academic community?
The “error correction” is important during a review, but more often is not only the methodological error correction, the researchers are well skilled, but the need for other clearer and more independent examination results to enhance the value of a paper.

4. What are your tips for preparing a high-quality review report? What key qualities make a review outstanding?
Before accepting a paper review, it is important to read the abstract to be sure to have skills in the field, as well as some lab experience. Then, an open-minded approach is important, letting go of any bias that could cloud your judgment.
The paper should be clear, with a robust methodology, and then the knowledge of the journal’s “Authors Guidelines”. This is really important for preparing a good review.
In recent years I have seen papers with many references, more than 50% are not useful, or just added for the authors’ interests. This should be outlined in order to prevent “citation systems” misuse.
Many times, the final papers’ conclusions are not based on the actual laboratory experimental work and in this case, it is mandatory to ask for other tests for the experimental tests. Very often, it is easy to read papers that just in the conclusion claim some “phase-identifications” without any TEM or other crystallographic determination presented in the experimental section.

5. What factors motivate you to be a reviewer for Metals, and what do you find most rewarding about the peer review process?
My experience started with publishing a paper in Metals and then receiving an invitation to review. It was simple and I discovered that the reviewer service is very interesting and permits us to stay on the crest of the wave for updating the research knowledge in material and metal applications.

6. In your research career, is there an experience in which review opinions promoted research breakthroughs?
No, unfortunately, I have never experienced such a booster. But thinking as an author it happens that the reviewer’s suggestions or comments help to clarify some details reporting more tests’ details.

7. Based on your rich reviewing experience, could you please share the common problems that authors face?
Well, there are several problems that an author has to solve apart from fluent language writing. I believe that an author must follow the “Authors Guidelines”, and the template, and organize the paper in clear sections: introduction, experimental, where are just reported the experimental tests and not the results. This is the most often problem faced: tests and results are mixed. This is a complexity also for the reviewer. Then, the discussion that many times is often a redundant exposition of literature papers (probably taken from previous Ph.D.-works) or a mixture of introduction and conclusion.